Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Given that annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the compact mode output structure (merged `results`, section counts/index ranges), the full mode with descriptions and arrays, exclusion of non-biddable notices and past/undated rows, and billing implications (paid feature, counts toward monthly searches). It goes well beyond annotations and sets clear expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then explains modes, exclusions, category, and billing. Each sentence adds useful information, but the length and density make it slightly less scannable than a more structured format. It is appropriately detailed for the complexity of the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and a moderately complex response structure. The description compensates by describing the default and full output shapes, the exclusion rules, and the category filter. It does not explain potential conflicts between `days` and `weeks`, but that is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool appropriately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how `compact:false` alters the output structure (full sections arrays) and by giving a concrete example for `category` ("procurement" for contracts only). This enriches the schema descriptions without redundancy.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Get upcoming funding deadlines,' which clearly identifies the tool's function as retrieving a calendar of deadlines. It further specifies the resource (funding deadlines) and context (planning an application schedule). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools that return broader matching results, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly sets the context for use: planning an application schedule and wanting a balanced view of grants and procurement. It explains the compact mode as default and how to opt out, and it gives an example of restricting by category. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' element, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.